by Mahindokht Najafi KHALAJABADI and Peyman Khademi ARAGHI
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2008,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicants, Mrs Mahindokht Najafi Khalajabadi and her son Mr Peyman Khademi Araghi, are Iranian nationals who were born in 1950 and 1966 respectively. They are represented before the Court by Mr E. Aksoy, a lawyer practising in Van. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.
The applicants complained that their possible deportation to Iran would expose them to a real risk of death or ill-treatment. In this respect they invoked Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention.
On 4 September 2008 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government which submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application on 26 November 2008.
On 22 December 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants who were requested to submit any observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 2 February 2009.
On 5 March 2009 the Registry of the Court sent the applicants another letter by registered mail stating that since no reply had been received the Court would consider striking the case out of its list. The applicants have not contacted the Court on the matter since then. The last information received from the applicants in the instant case is a copy of the application form sent by fax on 16 May 2008. The original application form and the authority forms have also not been submitted to the Court.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens